(1)   Can the Minister confirm that Special Category Visas are primarily issued to New Zealand citizens.

(2)   Can the Minister advise whether long-term Australian residents who were Special Category Visa holders prior to 26 February 2001 are considered to be ‘Australian residents’ under the Social Security Act 1991 and for the purposes of Australian citizenship.

(3)   Is the Minister aware of Special Category Visa holders who were long-term Australian residents and taxpayers prior to 26 February 2001, but who, being temporarily absent from Australia on that date, lost the benefits of Australian resident status, including eligibility for Australian citizenship.

(4)   Is it the case that ‘non-protected’ Special Category Visa holders, who were long-term residents and taxpayers in Australia, but who were temporarily absent from Australia on 26 February 2001, who are unable to obtain permanent residency, have no other recourse to obtaining Australian citizenship; if not, why not.

(5)   Can the Minister name any other class of ‘Australian resident’ under section 7 of the Social Security Act 1991 that has lost the benefits of that status, including Australian citizenship, upon return from a temporary absence from Australia.

(6)   Can the Minister confirm that Australia is a signatory to The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination 1966.

(7)   Has the Minister read ‘General Recommendation 30’ from the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination which states, inter alia, that differential treatment based on citizenship or immigration status will constitute discrimination if the criteria for such differentiation are not applied pursuant to a legitimate aim, and are not proportional to the achievement of this aim.

(8)   Did the Minister say on 26 February 2001 that new arrangements relating to New Zealand citizens, including citizenship eligibility, had been introduced with the express purpose of implementing a new social security agreement between Australia and New Zealand.

(9)   Can the Minister confirm that changes to Australian citizenship eligibility for New Zealand Special Category Visa holders who were long-term residents and taxpayers in Australia, but who were temporarily absent from Australia on 26 February 2001, were reasonably necessary to implement the bilateral social security agreement with New Zealand; if so, for what reason; if not, why not.

(10)   Can the Minister confirm that signatories to The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination 1966 are obliged to report to the UN on legislation on non-citizens and its implementation; if not, why not.

(11)   Did the Combined Thirteenth and Fourteenth Periodic Report of the Government of Australia under Article 9 of the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination 1966, which was presented in 2005 and covered the reporting period 1998 to 2002, report on legislative changes made to Australian citizenship criteria in 2001, and which affect New Zealand citizens; if not, why not; if so, what are the details provided in the report.

(12)   Can the Minister assure the House that the legislative changes referred to in part (8) do not breach the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination 1966; if so, how; if not, why not.

(1)   Special Category Visas (SCVs) are only granted to New Zealand citizens.

(2)   New Zealand citizens who were in Australia on 26 February 2001 and held a Special Category Visa (SCV) are classified as ‘eligible New Zealand citizens’ not ‘permanent residents’. An ‘eligible New Zealand citizen’ is able to apply for Australian citizenship, sponsor relatives for Australian permanent residence and access certain Social Security payments. The definition of ‘eligible New Zealand citizen’ came into effect on 27 February 2001 (further revised on 1 July 2001).

(3)   Not all New Zealand citizens who were absent from Australia on 26 February 2001 were affected by the changes announced by the Australian Government. New Zealand citizens who were outside Australia on 26 February 2001, but were in Australia and held a Special Category Visa for at least 1 year in the 2 years prior to that date; or had been issued with a Centrelink certificate prior to 26 February 2004 stating they were residing in Australia on a particular date were not affected. These Special Category Visa holders were, and still are, able to apply for Australian citizenship, sponsor relatives for Australian permanent residence and access certain Social Security payments. These transitional arrangements were intended such that New Zealand citizens who were temporarily outside of Australia were not disadvantaged and retained the benefits of the pre-February 2001 arrangements. The overall outcome of the changes announced by the Australian Government on 26 February 2001 was that most New Zealand citizens arriving in Australia after 27 February 2001 are required to obtain an Australian permanent residence visa if they wish to access certain social security payments, be eligible for Australian citizenship or sponsor people for Australian permanent residence. New Zealand citizens are still permitted to travel to, live and work indefinitely in Australia under terms of the Trans-Tasman Travel Arrangements while the holders of Special Category visas.

(4)   “Non-Protected” Special Category visa holders is not a term used under the Migration Act 1948 or Migration Regulations. New Zealand citizens who met the transitional provisions and therefore were not affected by the changes introduced on 26 February 2001 are classified as “Eligible New Zealand citizens”. As detailed in (3) above, transitional arrangements were put in place so people who had been recent long-term residents but were temporarily outside Australia on 26 February 2001 would not be disadvantaged.

(5)   Australian permanent residents who depart Australia and wish to return, are required to obtain a Resident Return Visa (RRV). To be granted an RRV, the applicant must be:

   In addition to the above, to be eligible for the grant of a five year RRV, the applicant must:

   Persons who do not meet the above criteria, but are required to leave Australia for compassionate and compelling reasons, may be eligible for a three month RRV.

   Former permanent residents, who are unable to meet the criteria for an RRV, and wish to return and live in Australia are required to apply for and be granted, a migrant visa.

   (6)   Yes.

   (7)   I am aware of General Recommendation 30 of the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.

   (8)   A media release from the Minister of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs dated 26 February 2001 stated in part:

   “The new arrangements have been introduced with the express purpose of implementing the new social security agreement and apply to all New Zealand citizens, regardless of place of birth. It provides a more equitable base for the free flow of people between each country.”

   (9)   Yes. The new Instrument issued under the Act, which gave effect to the requirement that New Zealand citizens entering Australia under those new arrangements are not treated as permanent residents for citizenship purposes, was required to support the new bilateral social security arrangements

   (10) Yes.

   (11) The Combined Thirteenth and Fourteenth Periodic Report of the Government of Australia under Article 9 of the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination 1966, was presented to the Committee on 25 November 2003 and covered the reporting period 1998 to 2002. It was also tabled in Parliament on the same day. The report referred to some changes to the citizenship legislation but did not specifically refer to the changes affecting New Zealand citizens as these changes were not considered to come within the ambit of the Convention (as per the answer to question 12).

   (12) The Office of International Law in the Attorney-General’s Department has advised that the legislative changes which were introduced in 2001 to implement a social security agreement between New Zealand and Australia do not breach the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD). Further, the changes do not constitute racial discrimination for the purposes of CERD.

   Article 1(1) of CERD provides that:

   ‘the term ‘racial discrimination’ shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life’.

   The changes do not constitute racial discrimination against New Zealanders, because there is now no distinction applied in relation to social security access between New Zealanders and other nationalities that arrive in Australia as migrants. Previously New Zealanders received preferential treatment, and any withdrawing of that treatment is not discrimination, but merely places New Zealanders on an equal footing with people of other nationalities.